Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 2007, 21(4), 12451250
2007 National Strength & Conditioning Association
A COMPARISON OF PERIODIZATION MODELS DURING
NINE WEEKS WITH EQUATED VOLUME AND INTENSITY
FOR STRENGTH
THOMAS W. BUFORD,1 STEPHEN J. ROSSI,2 DOUGLAS B. SMITH,3
1
Exercise and Sport Nutrition Laboratory, Baylor University, Waco, Texas 76798; 2Department of Health and
Kinesiology, Georgia Southern University, Statesboro, Georgia 30460; 3Department of Health and Human
Performance, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, Oklahoma 74078.
ABSTRACT. Buford, T.W., S.J. Rossi, D.B. Smith, and A.J. War-
ren. A comparison of periodization models during nine weeks
with equated volume and intensity for strength. J. Strength
Cond. Res. 21(4):12451250. 2007.The purpose of the present
investigation was to determine if significant differences exist
among 3 different periodization programs in eliciting changes in
strength. Twenty-eight recreationally trained college-aged vol-
unteers (mean SD; 22.29 3.98) of both genders were tested
for bench press, leg press, body fat percentage, chest circumfer-
ence, and thigh circumference during initial testing. After initial
testing, subjects were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 training
groups: (a) linear periodization (n 9), (b) daily undulating pe-
riodization (n 10), or (c) weekly undulating periodization (n
9). The training regimen for each group consisted of a 9-week,
3-day-per-week program. Training loads were assigned as heavy
(90%, 4 repetition maximum [4RM]), medium (85%, 6RM), or
light (80%, 8RM) for bench press and leg press exercises. Sub-
jects were familiarized with the CR-10 rated perceived exertion
scale and instructed to achieve an 8 or 9 on the final repetition
of each set for all other exercises. Subjects were then retested
after 4 weeks of training. Training loads were then adjusted ac-
cording to the new 1RM. Subjects were then retested after 5
more weeks of exercise. For all subjects, significant (p 0.05)
increases in bench press and leg press strength were demon-
strated at all time points (T1T3). No significant differences (p
0.05) were observed between groups for bench press, leg press,
body fat percentage, chest circumference, or thigh circumference
at all time points. These results indicate that no separation
based on periodization model is seen in early-phase training.
KEY WORDS. daily undulating, weekly undulating, linear, bench
press, leg press
INTRODUCTION
etermining the optimal resistance training
D program is an on-going process for athletes,
athletic coaches, strength coaches, and person-
al trainers alike. It is important for these pro-
fessionals to find a training advantage over
their competitors. Manipulating training variables in the
most effective manner to increase strength can be a
daunting task. One concept now generally held is that
some form of periodization is needed for maximal
strength gains to occur (5, 6, 14, 17, 18, 21, 24, 26), al-
though data to the contrary do exist (2, 23).
Periodization is the planned manipulation of training
variables in order to maximize training adaptations and
to prevent the onset of overtraining syndrome. Although
other models exist, 2 primary models of periodization
have been primarily examined in the literature. The first
is the classic, or linear, model first created by Russian
scientist Leo Matveyev and adapted by Stone and col-
leagues (24) to add an additional transition period during
1245
AND ARIC J. WARREN3
the training year. This model is based on changing ex-
ercise volume and intensity across several mesocycles.
The other primary model is the undulating model first
proposed by Charles Poliquin (20). Undulating periodi-
zation is based on the idea that volume and intensity are
altered more frequently (daily, weekly, or biweekly) in or-
der to give the neuromuscular system more frequent pe-
riods of recovery.
Most previous research has only studied the differ-
ences in periodized and nonperiodized programs. Fewer
investigations comparing specific models of periodization
exist in the literature. Because varying models of peri-
odization exist, it seems prudent to examine these pro-
tocols to determine if any one of these methods is more
effective at eliciting strength gains than others. To our
knowledge, only 2 studies have directly compared the ef-
fectiveness of linear and undulating periodized programs
specifically for increasing muscular strength. Baker and
colleagues (2) compared linear periodization (LP), undu-
lating periodization, and a nonperiodized model for 12
weeks and found no significant differences between
groups for 1 repetition maximum (1RM) squat, 1RM
bench press, or vertical jump. The undulating model used
by Baker varied the intensity and volume on a biweekly
basis. Although no significant differences were found be-
tween groups, the undulating model did show greater per-
centage increases in strength than the other protocols.
Rhea and colleagues (22) conducted an investigation
directly comparing LP and daily undulating periodization
(DUP) in recreationally trained lifters from college
weight-training classes. They equated volume and inten-
sity for all subjects in order to attribute differences be-
tween groups directly to the program design. They re-
ported the DUP group to experience significantly greater
percent gains in strength for both exercises and signifi-
cantly greater absolute gains for the leg press during 12
weeks. Absolute differences for bench press did not reach
significance at any time.
To our knowledge, no previous studies had examined
an undulating model varying volume and intensity on a
weekly basis or directly comparing linear and undulating
models. The primary purpose of this study was to deter-
mine if there is a significant difference in the ability to
produce strength gains among 3 periodization models in
recreationally trained subjects.
METHODS
Experimental Approach to the Problem
We wished to add to the findings of Rhea and colleagues
(22) by adding a weekly undulating periodization (WUP)
1246 BUFORD, ROSSI, SMITH ET AL.

TABLE 1. Subject characteristics: group mean SD.*

Group LP DUP WUP
n 9 (5 m, 4 f ) 10 (7 m, 3 f ) 9 (6 m, 3 f )
Age (y) 22.67 3.61 23.90 5.11 20.11 1.54
Weight (kg) 155.17 24.22 167.40 30.06 159.89 33.56
* m male; f female; LP linear periodization; DUP daily undulating periodization; WUP weekly undulating periodization.

TABLE 2. A comparison of Borg-15 point and CR-10 rated informed consent form, which was approved by the Insti-
perceived exertion (RPE) scales. tutional Review Board before participation in the study.
Borg CR-10 In addition, all subjects completed a medical history form
15-point RPE Description that included prior history of strength training. All sub-
jects completed 4 weeks of training (3 sessions per week)
6 0 Complete rest
8 1 Very, very easy within the weight-training class before the beginning of
10 2 Easy the study. Subjects reported prior weight-training expe-
12 3 Moderate rience, but before the 4 weeks of training in class, all sub-
14 4 Somewhat hard jects had been in a detrained state (no consistent training
15 5 Hard in the previous 2 months). Subjects agreed to abstain
16 6 from any additional resistance training during the course
17 7 Very hard of the study. Subjects were informed that they must at-
18 8 tend 90% of the training sessions to be included in the
18.5 9 study. Three absences disqualified a participant from the
19 10 Extremely hard (almost maximal)
20 Exhaustion
study. Two subjects withdrew from the study for unrelat-
ed reasons. This resulted in a total of 28 subjects who
completed the study. Subject characteristics are listed in
Table 1.
group in an investigation using collegiate weight-training
classes as a subject pool. To our knowledge, this is the Testing
first study to compare LP, DUP, and WUP. Total volume
and intensity were equated for all groups throughout the Subjects were tested pre-, mid-, and posttraining. Mid-
training period. Equating these variables allowed us to testing was conducted after week 4 of training. Testing
attribute differences in strength gains or body fat losses consisted of body composition testing using skinfold cali-
to program design only and not to higher levels of volume pers, thigh and chest circumference measurements, and
or intensity. Maximal bench press and leg press mea- 1RM testing on both bench press and leg press exercises.
surements allow for a proper measurement of upper- and Body composition testing was performed with a 7-site
lower-body strength in a recreational weightlifting pop- skinfold test using Lange calipers. The 7 sites chosen for
ulation because little skill is required in performing these the test were pectoral, thigh, subscapular, suprailiac, ab-
exercises. Skinfold measurements and anthropometric dominal, midaxillary, and triceps. Thigh and chest cir-
measures were taken to examine any changes in body cumferences were taken using standard tape measurers.
composition that may reflect whether strength gains were Thigh circumference was measured on the subjects dom-
attributable to hypertrophy or neural factors. Rated per- inant leg. Bench and leg press testing was done on stan-
ceived exertion (RPE) was examined throughout the dard free-weight stations. For 1RM testing, all subjects
training program for 2 purposes: (a) to validate the use were required to warm up and perform light stretching
of a percentage of 1RM to determine training load be- before performing approximately 10RM with a light re-
cause session RPE has been shown to be a valid instru- sistance for each exercise. The load was then increased to
ment to quantify the intensity of resistance training (4, an amount estimated to be less than the subjects 1RM.
9, 10, 16, 25) and (b) to determine if 1 workout structure The resistance was progressively increased until the sub-
would produce significantly lower RPE ratings because it ject could only perform 1RM. Before the first testing ses-
has been theorized that significantly higher RPE values sion, subjects were read, and given a copy of, a script to
may be an indicator of impending overtraining syndrome familiarize them with the Borg C-10 scale for determining
(7). RPE. A comparison of the C-10 to the traditional 15-point
Borg RPE scale can be found in Table 2. Each of the test-
Subjects ing sessions was performed at the same time of day to
Twenty men and 10 women were recruited from college account for diurnal changes in strength and followed the
weight-training classes. Subjects were required to sign an same number of days of rest. In addition, all tests were

TABLE 3. Schedule of exercises performed by day.*

Monday Wednesday Friday
Bench press Bench press Bench press 8RM 80%
Leg press Leg press Leg press 6RM 85%
Seated row Lat pulls Upright rows 4RM 90%
Lunges Leg extension Leg curls
Preacher curls Standing calves Triceps extension
Incline sit-ups Back extension Knee raises
* RM repetition maximum.
 COMPARISON OF PERIODIZATION MODELS 1247

TABLE 4. Schedule of exercise volume by group.*

LP group Weeks 13 Weeks 46 Weeks 79
38 36 34
Abdomen and low back 3 15 3 12 3 10
DUP group Monday Wednesday Friday
38 36 34
Abdomen and low back 3 15 3 12 3 10
WUP group Weeks 1, 4, 7 Weeks 2, 5, 8 Weeks 3, 6, 9
38 36 34
Abdomen and low back 3 15 3 12 3 10
* LP linear periodization; DUP daily undulating periodization; WUP weekly undulating periodization.

TABLE 5. Strength measures results: group mean SD.

Bench press
T1 T2 T3 % T1T3
LP* 131.11 52.07 146.67 56.57 162.78 58.42 24.2
DUP 154.50 74.18 170.0 71.99 181.50 70.52 17.5
WUP 145.0 40.85 162.22 45.15 180.56 43.33 24.5
Leg press
T1 T2 T3
LP 370.0 116.30 500.0 122.68 685.56 165.16 85.3
DUP 399.50 139.77 554.0 151.82 715.0 160.78 79
WUP 355.56 89.32 517.78 118.40 710.0 152.97 99.7
RPE
T1 T2 T3
LP 6.43 1.54 6.48 1.54 6.08 2.14 5.4
DUP 6.08 1.27 6.42 0.86 6.29 1.03 3.5
WUP 6.41 1.47 6.30 1.29 6.02 1.16 6.1
* LP linear periodization; DUP daily undulating periodization; WUP weekly undulating periodization; RPE rated per-
ceived exertion.

conducted by the same researcher during each of the 3 Statistical Analyses

test dates to eliminate intertester variability. All subject
training was supervised by the same individuals.
Training Protocol
After testing, men and women were separately randomly
assigned to 3 training groups (LP [n 9], DUP [n 10],
and WUP [n 9]) and began a 9-week resistance training
program. This assignment maintained an equivalent dis-
tribution of women in each group. Subjects trained 3 days
per week with a minimum of 48 hours in between ses-
sions. Exercises performed are listed in Table 3. The ex-
ercises performed each day were identical for each group.
Training volume and training intensity were altered con-
trarily for each group but were equated over the course
of the study. The numbers of repetitions performed per
set are defined in Table 4.
The Borg CR-10 scale was used to monitor subjects
perceived intensity of each exercise set and exercise ses-
sion. After each set of exercise and 30 minutes after ex-
ercise, subjects were asked to give an RPE for the diffi-
culty of each exercise set and training session. A rating
of 0 on the RPE scale represents rest or no effort, and a
rating of 10 represents maximal effort or most stressful
effort performed. For bench press and leg press, a per-
centage of 1RM of the most recent testing session was
figured to determine the resistance to be used for each
training session (Table 3). For all other exercises, subjects
were instructed to achieve an RPE of 8 or 9 on the final
repetition of each set.
The statistical evaluation of the data was accomplished
by using an analysis of variance (3 groups by 3 time
points) with repeated measures. Tukeys posthoc tests
were conducted as appropriate. Prior to analyses, a 1-way
analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was conducted for both
leg press and bench. An alpha of 0.05 was used to deter-
mine significance for all analyses. All values were re-
ported as mean SD.
RESULTS
Test-retest intraclass correlations (R) were calculated for
skinfold and circumference measurements. The R range
for skinfold measurements was R 0.9660.991. These
correlations for each skinfold were R 0.966 (pectoral),
R 0.983 (subscapular), R 0.986 (triceps), R 0.989
(thigh), R 0.991 (midaxillary), R 0.988 (suprailium),
and R 0.980 (abdominal). The R values for the circum-
ference measures were 0.994 (chest) and 0.980 (thigh).
The independent variable for the ANCOVAs was the
periodization group, which included 3 levels: LP, DUP,
and WUP. The dependent variables were the strength
values for time point 3 (T3), and the covariates were the
strength values from time point 1 (T1). For each exercise,
a preliminary analysis evaluating the homogeneity-of-
slopes assumption indicated that the relationship be-
tween the covariate and the dependent variable did not
differ significantly as a function of the independent var-
iable (bench F 1.54, p 0.24, 2 0.11; leg press F
0.60, p 0.556, 2 0.052). Neither ANCOVA was sig-
1248 BUFORD, ROSSI, SMITH ET AL.

TABLE 6. Body composition results: group means SD.

Body fat (%)
T1 T2 T3
LP* 24.90 9.27 23.97 9.02 23.65 8.73
DUP 21.09 7.53 19.90 7.84 19.69 7.74
WUP 21.57 11.24 20.71 10.47 20.74 9.81
Chest circumference (cm)
T1 T2 T3
LP 91.94 7.28 92.22 8.76 93.78 7.61
DUP 96.75 9.91 94.70 10.02 96.95 9.74
WUP 94.89 9.49 94.27 7.56 95.72 8.19
Thigh circumference (cm)
T1 T2 T3
FIGURE 1. Bench press 1 repetition maximum (RM) by
LP 49.44 4.65 52.78 5.44 52.72 5.40
group. LP linear periodization; DUP daily undulating pe-
DUP 51.90 4.45 53.40 4.98 53.80 5.37
riodization; WUP weekly undulating periodization.
WUP 50.22 5.31 52.61 4.77 53.89 3.79
* LP linear periodization; DUP daily undulating period-
ization; WUP weekly undulating periodization.

nificant, indicating no initial covariate differences among

adjusted means for either bench press or leg press (bench
F 1.096, p 0.350; leg press F 0.755, p 0.481).
A histogram frequency analysis revealed all data to be
normally distributed. No significant (p 0.05) differences
were observed between groups for any variables. Signifi-
cant (p 0.05) time effects were seen for bench press, leg
press, chest circumference, thigh circumference, and body
fat percentage. Significant (p 0.05) increases in bench
press and leg press strength were demonstrated at all
time points (T1T3). Body fat decreased, whereas thigh FIGURE 2. Leg press 1 repetition maximum (RM) by group.
circumference increased significantly (p 0.05) from T1 LP linear periodization; DUP daily undulating periodiza-
to T2 and from T1 to T3 with no significant change be- tion; WUP weekly undulating periodization.
tween the second 2 testing sessions. Chest circumference
was significantly (p 0.05) increased from T2 to T3. Ta-
bles 5 and 6 summarize the results of the statistical anal-
yses by group. The differences in bench press and leg
press 1RM by group can be seen in Figures 1 and 2.
When bench press and leg press variables were as-
sessed by gender, significant (p 0.05) time effects were
observed for all time points for each gender. For bench
press, 19 and 32% increases from T1 to T3 were seen for
men and women, respectively. In regard to leg press, men
demonstrated an 80% increase over the course of the
study, whereas women increased 108%. These results are
summarized in Table 7. The absolute changes for bench
press and leg press by gender are summarized in Figures
3 and 4. In addition, the individual subject response is
presented in Figures 5 and 6. FIGURE 3. Bench press 1 repetition maximum (RM) by gen-
der. * Significantly different (p 0.05) from T1. Significant-
DISCUSSION ly different (p 0.05) from T2.

The purposes of this study were to determine the effec-

tiveness of 3 periodization protocols for improving
strength and to determine if any one of these is more
effective than the others. Each of the 3 models proved
effective in increasing bench press and leg press strength
over the course of 9 weeks. In addition, these models were
applied to both men and women, and strength gains were
observed in both genders. Although statistically nonsig-
nificant, the DUP group did produce lower percentage
changes in bench press and leg press 1RM, as well as had
an increase in RPE over the course of the 9 weeks.
In comparison to studies using only men, few resis-
tance training studies have been conducted using women.
Studies have demonstrated that women respond to resis-
tance training and can experience strength gains (3, 12,
13, 15), yet few studies have directly examined the effect
of periodization on women (12, 15). Muscle fibers in both
genders show the same characteristics and respond to
training the same way; generally the only difference lies
in the amount of resistance to be used (1, 5, 11). As such,
we found it prudent to include women in our research. To
our knowledge, this is the first investigation to use wom-
en as subjects in comparison of multiple periodization
models. Female subjects were extremely responsive to all
models, showing mean increases of 32 and 108% for bench
press and leg press, respectively, when groups were col-
lapsed. Our small numbers of women in each group pre-
vented us from statistically comparing the effects of each
protocol on women. Analysis of the individual response

FIGURE 4. Leg press 1 repetition maximum (RM) by gender.
* Significantly different (p 0.05) from T1. Significantly dif-
ferent (p 0.05) from T2.
shows no major conflicting effect of using the 2 genders.
Further investigation is warranted to examine the spe-
cific effects of the protocols during all training durations
on women.
The changes in body composition indicate that
strength increases during those time points were not sole-
ly due to neural factors. Body fat was reduced while in-
creases in chest and thigh circumference were observed.
Hypertrophy was seen in greater amounts in the thigh
muscles than for the chest region. Caution must be used
in interpreting the chest circumference; however, no sig-
nificant differences were seen from T1 to T3, yet signifi-
cant differences were indicated from T2 to T3. The mean
chest circumference for all subjects decreased from 94.53
to 93.73 cm from T1 to T2 and then increased to 95.48
cm at T3. Although the T2 to T3 was found to be signif-
icant, it may not be all that meaningful because a differ-
ence of less than 2 cm existed.
It is interesting to examine the mean session RPE rat-
ings for each group. There were no significant differences
in session RPE between groups. This could indicate no
difference between the protocols in terms of reducing cu-
mulative fatigue, but further research is warranted with
extended training time or increased workloads. There-
fore, in this particular study, the RPE readings are not
of use in determining which protocol is more efficient at
battling the effects of overtraining syndrome. However, it
is interesting to note that the LP and WUP groups re-
ported lower RPEs at the end of the 9 weeks than at the
beginning, while the DUP group reported increased RPEs
from T1 to T2 and T1 to T3. Although determining the
effect of protocols on preventing overtraining syndrome is
difficult with these data, RPE can be of significant use
when working with a recreationally trained population.
Keeping recreationally trained lifters motivated to contin-
ue to push through a difficult workout program may be
more difficult than it would be for more advanced lifters.
A program must be made that does not push recreational
TABLE 7. Strength measures by gender: mean SD.
Bench press (lb)
T1 T2
Men 176.11 43.20 194.17 41.10
Women 86.0 18.97 98.50 20.15
Leg press (lb)
T1 T2
Men 435.0 97.57 598.33 95.32
Women 269.50 46.57 393.0 56.77
COMPARISON OF PERIODIZATION MODELS 1249
FIGURE 5. Bench press 1 repetition maximum (RM) subject
response.
FIGURE 6. Leg press 1 repetition maximum (RM) subject re-
sponse.
lifters too quickly so that they burn out and quit. If one
model can significantly lower RPE in the early stages of
training, it may benefit recreational lifters to a greater
degree in the long term if they remain motivated through
a difficult program.
Some might suggest that 0 weeks may be insufficient
time to elicit major differences between the protocols. Ide-
ally, a full macrocycle would be examined as periodization
was first implemented in terms of year-long training to
peak for 1 competition (17). However, Rhea and col-
leagues (22) noted significant differences in strength
gains in the first 6 weeks of training using bench and leg
press exercises. In this study, DUP elicited greater per-
centage strength gains than LP, and an absolute differ-
ence occurred in the leg press. This may be because their
subjects had been continuously training for 2 years. Fur-
ther research is warranted on the optimal training du-
ration of each of the periodized programs.
A recent investigation by Peterson and others (19) re-
ports that the effort-to-benefit ratio varies among un-
trained, recreationally trained, and athletic populations.
T3 % T1T3
209.44 38.73 18.93
113.50 22.24 31.98
T3
783.33 133.68 80.08
561.00 48.01 108.16
1250 BUFORD, ROSSI, SMITH ET AL.
Thus, optimizing the training effect cannot be achieved
by using 1 model for all populations. Therefore, it is rec-
ommended that these methods be replicated with both
untrained and athletic populations. Obtaining athletes as
subjects could be somewhat of a challenge, however, be-
cause convincing a coach to allow players to train in a
way in which some of them may receive inferior training
may prove difficult. It could prove useful to acclimate all
subjects to 1 protocol (for a period of 6 weeks, for example)
and then change the protocol for the other 2 groups to see
whether further adaptations occur. In addition, the use
of more advanced lifters would allow for the use of a more
advanced training program. For recreational lifters, we
chose to use the bench and leg press exercises because
they require little technical skill and we did not want
strength differences to be affected by differences in skill
ability at performing exercises. It may be that differences
in periodization models are best exhibited in more ad-
vanced programs.
In conclusion, we found that 9 weeks of periodized
weight training produced increases in strength in recrea-
tionally trained subjects, yet there was no difference in
strength gains among LP, DUP, and WUP. There was
also no significance in mean session RPE between groups.
All periodization models were effective at improving
strength in both genders. In the future, we recommend
further studies with extended training duration, as well
as research with untrained and athletic populations. Fur-
ther RPE investigations with recreational lifters may be
warranted as well.
PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS
The data from the current study indicate that there is no
difference in periodization models among LP, DUP, and
WUP over the course of 9 weeks in recreationally trained
individuals in eliciting strength gains. All of these models
proved effective at improving bench press and leg press
strength and are therefore warranted as appropriate
training protocols for short- to moderate-term training in
recreationally trained individuals. In addition, LP, DUP,
and WUP were all successful methods in improving
strength in subjects of both genders. Professionals con-
cerned with designing optimal training programs for their
clients should be aware that the proper periodization
model may be different based on the training status of
each particular individual. One prior study (21) reported
DUP to be more effective than LP; however, the results
of the current study reveal that LP, DUP, and WUP were
equally successful in promoting strength gains. It must
be remembered that these results do not necessarily ap-
ply to more advanced lifters or long-term training.
REFERENCES
1. BAECHLE, T.R., AND R.W. EARLE. Essentials of Strength Training and
Conditioning (2nd ed.). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 2000.
2. BAKER, D., G. WILSON, AND R. CAROLYN. Periodization: The effect on
strength of manipulating volume and intensity. J. Strength Cond. Res.
8:235242. 1994.
3. CHILIBECK, P.D., A.W. CALDER, D.G. SALE, AND C.E. WEBBER. A com-
parison of strength and muscle mass increases during resistance training
in young women. Eur. J. Appl. Physiol. 77:170175. 1998.
4. DAY, M.L., M.R. MCGUIAN, G. BRICE, AND C. FOSTER. Monitoring exercise
intensity during resistance training using the session RPE scale. J.
Strength and Cond. Res. 18:353358. 2004.
5. FLECK, S.J. Periodized strength training: A critical review. J. Strength
Cond. Res. 13:8289. 1999.
6. FLECK, S.J., AND W.J. KRAEMER. Designing Resistance Training Pro-
grams. Champaign, IL. Human Kinetics, 1997.
7. FOSTER, C. Monitoring training in athletes with reference to overtraining
syndrome. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 30:11641168. 1997.
8. GARHAMMER, J. Periodization of strength training for athletes. Track
Tech. 73:23982399. 1979.
9. GEARHART, R.F. JR, F.L. GOSS, K.M. LAGALLY, J.M. JACKICIC, J. GAL-
LAGHER, K.I. GALLAGHER, AND R.J. ROBERTSON. Ratings of perceived ex-
ertion in active muscle during high-intensity and low-intensity resis-
tance exercise. J. Strength Cond. Res. 16:8791. 2002.
10. GEARHART, R.F. JR, F.L. GOSS, K.M. LAGALLY, J.M. JACKICIC, J. GAL-
LAGHER, AND R.J. ROBERTSON. Standardized scaling procedures for rat-
ing perceived exertion during resistance exercise. J. Strength Cond. Res.
15:320325. 2001.
11. HERRICK, A.B., AND W.J. STONE. The effects of periodization versus pro-
gressive resistance exercise on upper and lower body strength in women.
J. Strength Cond. Res. 10:7276. 1996.
12. KRAEMER, W.J., K. HAKKINEN, N.T. TRIPLETT-MCBRIDE, A.C. FRY, L.P.
KOZIRIS, N.A. RAMAMESS, J.E. BAUER, J.S. VOLEK, T. MCCONNELL, R.U.
NEWTON, S.E. GORDON, D. CUMMINGS, J. HAUTH, F. PULLO, J.M. LYNCH,
S.A. MAZZETTI, AND H.G. KNUTTGEN. Physiological changes with period-
ized resistance training in women tennis players. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc.
35:157168. 2003.
13. KRAEMER, W.J., B. NINDL, N. RAMATESS, L. GOTSHALK, J. VOLEK, S.
FLECK, R. NEWTON, AND K. HAKKINEN. Changes in muscle hypertrophy
in women with periodized resistance training. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 36:
697708. 2004.
14. KRAEMER, W.J., AND N.A. RAMATESS. Fundamentals of resistance train-
ing: Progression and exercise prescription. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 36:
674688. 2004.
15. KRAEMER, W.J., N.A. RAMATESS, A.C. FRY, T. TRIPLETT-MCBRIDE, L.P.
KOZIRIS, J.A. BAUER, J.M. LYNCH, AND S.J. FLECK. Influence of resis-
tance training volume and periodization on physiological and perfor-
mance adaptations in collegiate women tennis players. Am. J. Sports
Med. 28:626633. 2000.
16. LAGALLY, K.M., S.T. MCCAW, G.T. YOUNG, H.C. MEDEMA, AND D.Q.
THOMAS. Ratings of perceived exertion and muscle activity during the
bench press exercise in recreational and novice lifters. J. Strength Cond.
Res. 18:359364. 2004.
17. MATVEYEV, L. Fundamentals of Sports Training. Moscow: Progress, 1981.
18. PEARSON, D., A. FAIGENBAUM, M. CONLEY, AND W.J. KRAEMER. The Na-
tional Strength and Conditioning Associations basic guidelines for the
resistance training of athletes. Strength Cond. J. 22:1427. 2000.
19. PETERSON, M.D., M. RHEA, AND B. ALAVAR. Applications of the dose-
response for muscular strength development: A review of meta-analytic
efficacy and reliability for designing training prescription. J. Strength
Cond. Res. 19:950958. 2005.
20. POLIQUIN, C. Five steps to increasing the effectiveness of your strength
training program. NSCA J. 10:3439. 1988.
21. RHEA, M.R., AND B.L. ALDERMAN. A meta-analysis of periodized versus
nonperiodized strength and power training programs. Res. Q. Exerc.
Sport 75:413423. 2004.
22. RHEA, M.R., S.D. BALL, W.T. PHILLIPS, AND L.N. BURKETT. A comparison
of linear and daily undulating periodized programs with equated volume
and intensity for strength. J. Strength Cond. Res. 16:250255. 2002.
23. SCHIOTZ, M.K., J.A. POTTEIGER, P.G. HUNTSINGER, AND D.C. DENMARK.
The short-term effects of periodized and constant-intensity training on
body composition, strength, and performance. J. Strength Cond. Res. 12:
173178. 1998.
24. STONE, M.H., H. OBRYANT, AND J. GARHAMMER. A hypothetical model
for strength training. J. Sports Med. Phys. Fit. 21:342351. 1981.
25. SWEET, T.W., C. FOSTER, M.R. MCGUIGAN, AND G. BRICE. Quantitation
of resistance training using the session rating of perceived exertion
method. J. Strength Cond. Res. 18:796806. 2004.
26. WILLOUGHBY, D.S. The effects of mesocycle-length weight training pro-
grams involving periodization and partially equated volumes on upper
and lower body strength. J. Strength Cond. Res. 7:28. 1993.
Address correspondence to Thomas W. Buford, thomas
buford@baylor.edu.